Victoria Australia

Planning scam, or should I say, planning scam juggernaut. The speed of so-called consultations for new development proposals is overwhelming democracy. No-one, except wealthy professional developers, with dedicated teams of staff, can keep up with the proposals. Maybe that’s the point. Still recovering from two recent surgeries, and on the heels of an unavoidable community organisation event, involving time consuming preparation and sequelae, I was looking forward to taking a break. I could see about 3 weeks of "clear sky" ahead of me, in which I could deal with an issue of mutual concern with my neighbour, do my tax return, prune the lemon tree, wash the curtains, and organise the hard rubbish for Friday. This feeling of relative freedom lasted about two days, before yet another "opportunity" for consultation from Melbourne Planning reared its head.

Or was it an obligation? This latest one involved a new parliamentary act about Public Land:

"Have your say and contribute to a project to renew Victoria’s public land legislation for the benefit of the community through the creation of a new Public Land Act." https://engage.vic.gov.au/renewing-victorias-public-land-legislation

I ran my eye over the document. The call for ‘streamlining’ and the reiteration of reassuring statements that ‘current tenures’ would not be disturbed, alerted me to the need to know what was going to happen to ‘future tenures.’ Of course, there was no clear information on that burning question. Just appendices talking about ‘sustainable’ use, to “enhance the natural, cultural, social, and economic values of public land.” Knowing that Victoria’s parliament always puts ‘economic’ values above environmental ones and any others, I did not like to think what the developers, who more or less run parliament these days, want to push through under the bleary eyes of community group members.

But this threatening document, albeit smiley-faced, is just the latest of many. Last year the Victorian State Government sought submissions on "environmental infrastructure for growing populations" and another one on "ecosystem decline," another on "A regional climate change adaptation strategy for Greater Melbourne," another on, "Waterways of the West Action Plan," another on, "Future of our forests". Making a serious submission is not just a walk in the park for a working person! Furthermore , these were highlights in an endless stream, which had begun as a trickle with a Plan for General Development (1929), then Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954: Survey & Analysis, and Report (1954), Planning Policies for Metropolitan Melbourne (1971), Report on General Concept Objections (1974), Metropolitan Strategy Implementation (1981), Living Suburbs (1995), and gathered into a torrent around the turn of the 21st century, with Melbourne 2030: Planning for sustainable growth (2002), A plan for Melbourne's growth areas [2005], Melbourne 2030 Audit [2007-2008], Planning for all of Melbourne [May 2008], Melbourne @ 5 million [December 2008], Delivering Melbourne's newest sustainable communities [See Amendment VC68 (July 2010)], Plan Melbourne 2014, Plan Melbourne 2017 - 2050 (2017), Plan Melbourne Addendum (2019).[1] As well as this there were vast new tollways to connect new suburbs that never should have been built, and VCAT was transformed from a low-key tribunal where people represented themselves at low cost, to a high-powered, development-biased kangaroo court, defiantly serving the legal and development industries. All this affected public land, and changes were often spear-headed by superficially innocent ‘bike-paths’, and new sports-grounds, which so-called ‘environmental groups’ would try to bludgeon through.

The Melbourne City Council gains community input via its website under the banner of "Participate Melbourne." I have participated a number of times, on behalf of community organisations. Most people probably never hear of these invitations to submit [to fruitless pain] but, if you belong to a community group, particularly if it is concerned with the environment, somebody will bring each “opportunity” to your attention.

Repetition is forcing me to question whether these "consultations" are actually wonderful opportunities for my ideas to be carried forward. More and more they amount to tedious homework exercises to keep me quietly beavering away at home, unpaid, alone at my computer, away from my friends, the books I long to read, and facing a deadline. Occasionally I will let one go by, as it might save me a week of my life, when I can catch up with my grocery shopping, mow the lawn (yes, I am lucky enough to have a little green patch), and clean the windows.

Mostly however, I am a fairly compliant "environmental activist," dutifully submitting or assisting others' diligent efforts. What happens to our high-quality work? Usually, we agree to it being visible to the public, so it has to be of a standard that we would not be ashamed of, and which will possibly bring credit to the organisation we are representing. Are we listened to? Not according to the late Paul Mees, in "Who killed Melbourne 2030."

“Mees (2003, 2007) criticises both the content ofMelbourne 2030and the process by which it was produced,arguing that both the consultation process and the commitment to sustainability praised by the strategy’s admirers were shams. Although there was a very extensive process of consultation, this was not allowed to influence the strategy, which was written in private by members of the Strategy Development Division. And the strategic directions involved only a rhetorical, rather than a real, departure from the policies of the previous Kennett government, which focussed on market-led residential infill and road-based transport. Mees (2003, p. 298) predicted that the strategy would not survive a change of government, as it had no legitimacy in the eyes of the public, and did not deserve to survive, as it lacked substance and rigour.” [...]

“A series of ‘strategic directions’ ranging from the trite (Direction 8: Better transport links) to the completely content-free (Direction5: A great place to be) was presented for public endorsement. When people agreed with these platitudes – as if there was an alternative: worse transport links, or a terrible place to be, perhaps? – the Department of Infrastructure then treated this as endorsement of its actual policies and proposals, which were never submitted for public discussion or approval. An additional round of consultation to review the draft was proposed early in the process, but then cancelled without explanation (Mees, 2003).” ("Who killed Melbourne 2030.")

These “democratic” opportunities are becoming a burden and a way of life. My feeling is that I, as a member of the public, am being consulted because something valuable to the community, and to our environmental health, is about to either come under attack or be radically changed in some way. The imperative to make a submission within a deadline, and with proposals and deadlines coming down the planning pipeline at ever accelerating speed, puts members of the community in an invidious position. If we don't make a submission, it will appear that we don't care or we are asleep at the wheel. It's almost as though, if, under our watch, the government authority stuffs up, we have only ourselves to blame. But this is not so. In Australia, we have three levels of government which should be responsible for protecting their constituents from unfair, unsafe, overly rapid, intensifying development.

This constant need for public consultation, however, would indicate to me that they are not governing in our interests. Governments should have access to whatever expert advice they need in order to avoid environmental damage, yet it seems they are powerless or unwilling to prevent environmental destruction, rural or urban. Is all this public consultation the "get out of gaol free card" for ministers and public servants nominally at the head of planning departments that have actually contracted out their responsibility to private developers?

We know from successive government environmental reports that the Victorian environment is in steep decline. At the end of the day, when there is no wildlife, no native forests, and no public urban parklands, do members of the last government delude themselves with this declaration, "We consulted the public, and they obviously wanted to live in urban deserts?"

Or are we seeing a ‘tick-boxes’ to satisfy the community consultation auditor, whilst really satisfying the demands of mafias and triads in property development, that have got their claws solidly into government and opposition?

The unreasonable pace of 'planning' abets destructive development by overwhelming democratic participation

This trend to overwhelming community groups and individuals committed to democracy, with avalanches of consultations, seems like part of a cynical plan. The key to it all is the unreasonable pace. Something similar was burlesqued in 1970 in a film called The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. Politically agile polling expert, Michael Rimmer, finally extracts total power from the people by requiring them to engage in endless postal voting on trivial matters. They are so exhausted, that they finally vote to pass all power to Rimmer.

You can watch the movie on youtube here. Or you can watch Melbourne Planning. There isn’t much difference, although the film is funnier.

More information about The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Rise_of_Michael_Rimmer “The mysterious Michael Rimmer (Cook) appears at a small and ailing British advertising agency, where the employees assume he is working on a time and motion study. However, he quickly begins to assert a de facto authority over the firm's mostly ineffectual staff and soon acquires control of the business from the incompetent boss Ferret (Arthur Lowe). Rimmer then succeeds in establishing the newly invigorated firm as the country's leading polling agency, and begins to make regular TV appearances as a polling expert. He subsequently moves into politics, acting as an adviser to the leader of the Tory opposition, and then becomes an MP himself, for the constituency of Budleigh Moor (a reference to Cook's frequent collaborator, Dudley Moore), along the way acquiring a trophy wife (Vanessa Howard).

Relying on a combination of charisma and deception—and murder—he then rapidly works his way up the political ladder to become prime minister (after throwing his predecessor off an oil rig). Rimmer then gains ultimate control by requiring the populace to engage in endless postal voting on trivial matters. At last, exhausted, they acquiesce in one final vote which passes dictatorial power to him. Ferret attempts to assassinate Rimmer as he and his wife ride through the capital in an open-topped convertible, but fails and falls to his death. (1970 British satirical film starring Peter Cook, and co-written by Cook, John Cleese, Graham Chapman, and Kevin Billington.)

NOTES

[1] “Plans” for Melbourne have been coming ever thicker and faster. You can read about them via the links below:

• Plan Melbourne Addendum (2019) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/plan-melbourne
• Plan Melbourne 2017 - 2050 https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/plan-melbourne
• Melbourne's strategic planning history https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history
• Plan Melbourne 2014 https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/plan-melbourne-2014
• Melbourne 2030 Audit [2007-2008]
• Melbourne 2030: Planning for sustainable growth (2002)https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/melbourne-2030-planning-for-sustainable-growth
• Delivering Melbourne's newest sustainable communities [See Amendment VC68 (July 2010)] https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/delivering-melbournes-newest-sustainable-communities
• Melbourne @ 5 million [December 2008] https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/[email protected]
• Planning for all of Melbourne [May 2008] https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/planning-for-all-of-melbourne
• A plan for Melbourne's growth areas [2005] https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/a-plan-for-melbournes-growth-areas
• Living Suburbs (1995) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/living-suburbs
• Metropolitan Strategy Implementation (1981) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/metropolitan-strategy-implementation-1981
• Report on General Concept Objections (1974) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/report-on-general-concept-objections-1974
• Planning Policies for Metropolitan Melbourne (1971) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/planning-policies-for-metropolitan-melbourne-1971
• Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954: Report https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/melbourne-metropolitan-planning-scheme-1954-report
• Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954: Survey & Analysis https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/melbourne-metropolitan-planning-scheme-1954-survey-and-analysis
• Plan for General Development (1929) https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/plan-for-general-development-1929

Kelvin Thomson will be speaking at an event organised by the Builders Collective of Australia on the 25 August 2019. 'In light of the cladding crisis, Builders Collective of Australia present a public event to discuss the causes, consequences and solutions'. https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/cladding-conversations-tickets-65666711903

About this Event

With an aggregate rectification bill of billions of dollars, the fallout from flammable cladding is unfolding through the building industry, property market, and legal systems.

As well as immediate practical challenges of making buildings safe and compliant, flammable cladding raises broader questions around risk in our buildings and cities, and the frameworks that govern them. How do we, and how should we, assign responsibility for cladding issues and for fixing them? How do governments balance tensions between accountability, certainty, and the immediate need to make buildings safe? How did we get here and what are the options moving forward?

In light of such questions, Builders Collective of Australia, present a public event comprising an expert panel with a primary purpose to discuss the causes, consequences and solutions to flammable cladding. The expert panel draws together a range of perspectives to help illuminate how the flammable cladding problem came about, what the range of consequences are, and what could or should be done to fix it.

Speakers will discuss government, consumer, academic and industry-based insights into different aspects of the combustible cladding challenge. The discussion will cover questions around the building industry, litigation, regulation, owners corporations, fire engineering, consumer rights, and planning processes.

The event will comprise a short facilitated panel discussion, but more importantly it then gives the Moreland residents and the wider Victorian community a chance to particpate in an audience discussion on the issue.'

https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/cladding-conversations-tickets-65666711903

A jaw-full of mega shark teeth – rare evidence that a shark twice the size of a Great White stalked Australia's ancient waters – is to be unveiled at Melbourne Museum on today, Thursday 9 August. Usually shark teeth are found singly, but this time they have the whole set for the gigantic Great Jagged Narrow-Toothed Shark.

A prehistoric shark feast, the 9m long Great Jagged Narrow-Tooth Shark becoming a meal for several Sixgill Sharks. Credit: Peter Trusler / Philip Mullaly, the local Ocean Grove resident who found the mega shark teeth with Dr Erich Fitzgerald. Credit: Museums Victoria

Victorian Fossil Find Uncovers Prehistoric Leftovers of Colossal Shark Feast

A visit to his local beach will never be the same again for Philip Mullaly. The keen-eyed fossil enthusiast has found an extraordinary set of shark teeth - evidence that a shark nearly twice the size of a Great White once stalked Australia’s ancient oceans. The citizen scientist made the find in Jan Juc, a renowned fossil site along Victoria’s Surf Coast.

“I was walking along the beach looking for fossils, turned and saw this shining glint in a boulder and saw a quarter of the tooth exposed. I was immediately excited, it was just perfect and I knew it was an important find that needed to be shared with people,” recounts Mr Mullaly.

Up to 7 cm long, the teeth have been identified as being from an extinct species of mega-toothed shark - the Great Jagged Narrow-Toothed Shark (Carcharocles angustidens) - which could grow to more than 9-metres long, almost twice the length of today’s Great White Shark.

This shark stalked Victoria’s ancient sea approximately 25 million years ago, during the late Oligocene epoch. It was the top predator and would have preyed on small whales.

Recognising the significance of the discovery, Mr Mullaly contacted Dr Erich Fitzgerald, Senior Curator of Vertebrate Palaeontology at Museums Victoria with an offer to donate the teeth to Museums Victoria’s collection, an offer gratefully accepted.

Almost all fossils of sharks worldwide are just single teeth, so it is extremely rare to find multiple associated teeth from the same shark.

This is because sharks, who have the ability to regrow teeth - lose up to a tooth a day. Cartilage, the material a shark skeleton is made of, does not readily fossilise.

“These teeth are of international significance, as they represent one of just three associated groupings of Carcharocles angustidens teeth in the world, and the very first set to ever be discovered in Australia,” Dr Fitzgerald explains.

“By donating his discovery to Museums Victoria, Phil has ensured that these unique fossils are available for scientific research and education both now and for generations to come. This is absolutely essential for documenting and preserving Australia’s prehistoric history.”

Realising Mr Mullaly's haul was all from the same species, Dr Fitzgerald suspected that the teeth came from one individual shark and there might be more teeth still entombed in the rock at Jan Juc.

So, in December 2017 and January 2018, Dr Fitzgerald led a team of Museums Victoria palaeontologists, volunteers, associates and Mr. Mullaly on two expeditions to excavate the site.

Battling summer heat, and with only a tiny window each day to access the site at low tide, the team dug out the entire boulder, collecting more than 40 teeth.

Most of the teeth belonged to the giant shark Carcharocles angustidens, but in addition, several smaller teeth were found revealing something even more surprising...

Comparison of Carcharocles angustidens and a Great White Shark. Credit: Peter Trusler

In the boulder, were several teeth of a smaller shark, the Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus).

According to Museums Victoria palaeontologist Tim Ziegler, these came from several different individuals and would have become detached from their jaws as they were scavenging on the huge carcass of the Carcharocles angustidens after it died.

“The teeth of the sixgill shark work like a crosscut saw, and tore into the Carcharocles angustidens like loggers felling a tree. The stench of blood and decaying flesh would have drawn scavengers from far around.

“Sixgill sharks still live off the Victorian coast today, where they live off the remains of whales and other animals. This find suggests they have performed that lifestyle here for tens of millions of years.”

This new discovery cements Jan Juc as one of Australia’s most important fossil sites, as it continues to provide us with unique insights into the deep history of Australia’s marine life including whales, dolphins, sharks and countless smaller marine animals.

The general public will have a rare and limited opportunity to see these incredible teeth specimens when they go on display at Melbourne Museum as part of National Science Week on Thursday 9 August. The display will be open until Sunday 7 October.

The Mega Shark Fossil Find display will feature all 45 fossil shark teeth, as well as state-of-the-art life-sized 8-metre long digital animation which will appear to swim around the gallery floor surrounding the showcase.

For National Science Week, Melbourne Museum has programmed a suite of palaeontology events, including fossil identifications, Jurassic Park 3D in IMAX (18 Aug), (19 Aug) and The Giants of Palaeontology talk with Dr Fitzgerald and fellow Museums Victoria palaeontologist Dr Tom Rich (19 Aug).

The Mega Shark Fossil Find opens to the public as part of National Science Week on Thursday 9 August, and will run until Sunday 7 October.

Museums Victoria’s field research at Jan Juc is carried out with the support of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Surf Coast Shire Council and the Great Ocean Road Coast Committee.

Australia's Catholic Church was Australia's biggest private property owner in 2005[1] and probably still is. It is deeply embedded in Australia's housing-fueled ponzi-scheme, which costs the rest of us so much environmental heartache and financial pain. It also a major source of the immigrationist propaganda that is fed the public. The author has been particularly sickened to read lately of how the church is reaping untaxed benefits by wrecking a local creek whilst developing a site now infamous for its institutionalised child-abuse, and how it continues to be granted a privileged seat at the planning table.

A recent Age article reveals just how embedded the RC church is in housing-fueled ponzi-scheme we are living through. See "Private school explosion on Melbourne's fringe," by Timna Jacks and Royce Millar,
The Age, July 7, 2017.

Note the paragraph stating:

"So, too, does the Catholic sector in particular demand, and is given, a seat at the table in the planning of greenfield areas.
In its 2016-17 annual report Catholic Education Melbourne claims to be "firmly embedded" with the Victorian Planning Authority and to have strengthened its "prominent" position in growth area planning. [The report] also notes that where the planning authority agrees a Catholic school is justified in a new suburb, it has changed its approach to designate the site as 'Catholic' rather than just 'non-government'.

Another article, about Sunbury with Trevor Dance quoted: "Changing Sunbury a microcosm of Melbourne's rapid growth," by Clay Lucas and Royce Millar, notes that the Salesian Brothers are working with the developer to bring forward the development of the land, and leading to the destruction of Jackson’s Creek.

A 2013 SMH article about these evil abusers, the Salesians of Sunbury, "The Hell House," by Mark Russell and Jared Lynch, gives us significant background and sticks in my mind for personal reasons.

As a Paediatric Audiologist around 1980 I remember one of my patients was a young very deaf lad from some farming area, whose mother so proudly told me she had got him a place boarding at the Salesian Brothers Rupertswood, Sunbury, which had an agricultural strand to its curriculum. The Salesians' debauchery at Rupertswood would have been well underway back then. She envisaged her beloved deaf son becoming a competent farmer and returning to their family farm to eventually take over running it. I shudder to think what might have actually happened, and that the Salesians may well have returned him to his family as a broken, damaged man - so many of whom have gone on to commit suicide.

It makes me sick that they are now reaping millions of dollars developing the site where they abused so many children in their care- and yet we still consider them and their organisation worthy of a seat at the planning table. And they are of course quite happy to trash the local environment in the process.

NOTES

[1] "NGOs are an integral part and function of corporate power. In 2005, Australia’s Catholic Church, which receives tens of millions of dollars yearly in government subsidy had revenue of nearly A$16.2 billion, all tax free, and ‘was Australia’s biggest private property owner and nongovernment employer, with more than 150,000 on its payroll (Cadzow 2012: 12)."
Paul, E.. Australia as US Client State, edited by E. Paul, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, .
Created from slv on 2017-05-24 07:01:05

Message from YCAT and the RAT re the outrageous proposed acquisition of property by the State Government in the path of the East West Link and a meeting organised for affected residents and traders. Education session with lawyers on issues of compulsory acquisition.

Know your rights as residents! Property acquisition and the East West Link

Tuesday August 5th
Clifton Hill Primary School, 185 Gold Street,
Clifton Hill

Residents of Clifton Hill, Collingwood, Fitzroy and Carlton are invited to a meeting convened by the Residents Against the Tunnel (RAT) to enable discussion and to inform you about the various issues raised for home owners and tenants by the proposed East West Link.

The discussion will cover:

• home owners notified they will be compulsory acquired
• those outside the project boundary wanting voluntary acquisition option
• those above the tunnel sections having their title rights acquired
• people wanting to have property inspections to protect,their position if there is damage during works
• people who are tenants in buildings to be acquired

There will be lawyers from major firms present to explain the legal issues and take your questions about what
your rights are and what you need to do to get the right outcome for your situation.

Download leafet: Property acquisition and the EWL- Eastern section (pdf) Property-acquisition-and-the-EWL-flyer-Eastern-section.pdf

The Linking Melbourne Authority has indicated it will start issuing "Notices of lntention to Acquire" in early August and will take ownership of the properties by October - although residents may be allowed to rent these back until August
2015.

It is coming to crunch time. The East West Link is coming under unprecedented criticism from all corners and is subject to two Supreme Court challenges.

Contracts may not be signed by the election and the road may never go ahead. However the Government is intent on ploughing ahead and will start the legal process to take homes before the required legislation has been passed.

This meeting will explain the complex situation and outline your options. Come along to find out the
facts.

Final Reminder : Rally "Say No to the East West Link - Yes to Doncaster Rail" Tuesday 20 August 2013 12:45 pm for 1 pm start to 2 pm Steps of Parliament. It is DDay for the future of Melbourne. Our inner city suburbs and our parks - Royal Park, Travancore and the Moonee Ponds Creek- will be bulldozed and destroyed if the juggernaut of the East West Link is constructed, unless we act now.

The rally is being initiated by community groups and is being hosted by the Coalition of Transport Action Groups (CTAG) whose coordinators are Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Yarra Coalition for Action of Transport (YCAT.) It has the support of the City of Yarra which has been running the excellent "Trains Not Toll Roads "campaign. See website http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/trains-not-tollroads

See the video, "Lies we don't buy," about the East West Link.

Why 20 August is our deadline

The 20 August 2013 is the first day of Parliament after the winter recess. It is imperative that the rally be held on this day as the Amendment relating to the East West Link to the Major Projects Transport Facilitation Act 2009 is due for the second reading and debate in the Legislative Assembly. It signals that the Government is trying to fast track the EW Link; further reduce consultation and public input; and hand over authority to the project proponent - Linking Melbourne Authority - who will be able to change the rules as the project proceeds and as it sees fit. (Just look at the LMA website with photos of the construction of EastLink and PeninsulaLink and you will see what we are in for.)

Venu: Steps of Parliament or nearby if not accessible

The venue is the steps of Parliament but you may have to stand on the footpaths opposite outside the Windsor Hotel or the Imperial Hotel as areas of the steps are blocked off. The MC of the rally, Rod Quantock (Atg President of PPL VIC), will given instructions. Please bring placards but not banners as it is likely to be windy. Plus there may not be room on the steps of Parliament. Look forward to seeing you there!

Make your comment here:

Urgent. See Linking Melbourne Authority News Mailout [email protected] Please comment in your own words that you are opposed to the East West Link and advocate instead public transport eg Doncaster Rail. (The Director of LMA is reported to have stated that only a few people have made comments so obviously the public are satisfied with the project! So prove him wrong.)

For queries contact Julianne Bell PPL VIC on Mobile 0408022408 or Freda Watkin YCAT on Mobile 0422650936.

Source: Press release by Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) and the Coalition of Transport Action Groups (CTAG)

On 22 February 2012 former Premier Ted Baillieu issued a change in the Administration of Acts under a General Order. He allocated sections of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and sections of the Wildlife Act 1975 to Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh. These sections ‘legally’ paved the way for a commercial kangaroo killing industry to be re-introduced into Victoria, after having been banned for many good reasons in 1982.

(Pictures adapted from Brett Clifton collection.)

More signs that agriculture is swamping legislation to protect native animals

Minister Walsh has close connections with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), (President from 1998 – 2000), Parliamentary Coalition positions including Agriculture, Water, Environment and Climate Change, Country Water Resources and is on Parliament’s Environment, Natural Resources Committee. Prior to Parliament, he ran an irrigated horticulture, grain growing business at Boort. This makes negotiations with farmers easy, when allowing kangaroo shooters to enter rural properties etc.

Peter Walsh is also Minister responsible for the Meat Industry Act 1993, which covers the standards for meat production for human consumption and pet food. It sets up a licensing & inspection system and a mechanism for adopting and implementing quality assurance programs to ensure that those standards are maintained. This includes the regulation of meat transport vehicles and Victorian Meat Authority.

Incredibly Walsh is also Minister for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

Why Victoria has continuously banned commercial slaughter of roos to date

Commercial slaughter of Kangaroos was banned in 1982 by the Cain Government.
Its' reintroduction was raised in 2002 by Premier Steve Bracks and was fully investigated by the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee of Parliament (ENRC). ENRC recommended that the development of an industry based on the harvest of wild Kangaroos should not be supported in Victoria. The Victorian Government declared no further assessment be made as the matter was previously the subject of a detailed study that had concluded the industry was economically unviable.

Government-push to overpopulate has dire consequences for wildlife

Since this Ban was introduced, there has been an unprecedented rate of unsustainable, exponential human population growth necessitating greater and greater urban and peri-urban development. It has been Victorian Government policy not to support a commercial harvest of Kangaroos based on:

* Low densities of Kangaroos in Victoria.
* The high cost of administrative checks and balances.
* Strong opposition from sectors of the community.
*Victoria's terrain and vegetation cover makes accurate counting of Kangaroos very difficult and consequently nobody knows how many Kangaroos there are in Victoria.
*Since this Ban was introduced, there has been an unprecedented rate of unsustainable population growth necessitating greater and greater urban and peri-urban development.
*All native wildlife which inhabited the claimed areas have been displaced, especially Kangaroos. This has lead to Kangaroo numbers being fragmented and trapped in concentrated areas of suburban sprawl.
* Landholders perceive this to be an increase to Kangaroo numbers, so they issue Authority To Control Wildlife (ATCW) kill permits which have increased exponentially and dramatically.
* Victoria has NO Fauna Management Framework

Victorian DSE an open sore that will not heal

DSE is now under considerable fire for failing to implement the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 under which they have mandatory obligations to protect native animals.

If the Victorian Government re-introduces a commercial industry to placate the wishes of landholders, kangaroos would be decimated; there simply are not enough kangaroos to sustain an industry.

There is no justification for a commercial Kangaroo industry in Victoria. NSW, Qld, WA and SA have commercial Kangaroo industries and are experiencing closure of processing plants and shooters leaving the industry in droves because the market for Kangaroo meat has fallen dramatically. The only money to be made is in the sale of skins which is a totally unacceptable base, to provide profits for a greedy few.

Inhumane policies to wildlife, especially kangaroos

The Victorian Government has a mandate to manage the affairs of this state on behalf of the residents and Victorian families and individuals. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council strenuously objects to the Napthine Government re-introducing a commercial Kangaroo industry into Victoria.

The fact that this is being undertaken by stealth compels the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) to advise the Victorian Premier of its intense disapproval:
* The inhumane treatment to kangaroos from misfired shots, orphaned young, stress on family mobs, cruel disposal of Joeys and loss of genetic integrity, variability of the gene pool are well known ..
* Not only is this industry unsustainable and un-Australian but it would bring danger into our bush land where international visitors should be safe.
* That costs of researching & feasibility of this industry is paid for by Victorian tax payers is shameful.
* The only people to gain will be landholders, kangaroo processors, shooters and chiller operators.
* Since Russia banned import of Kangaroo product in 2009, the industry in Australia has plummeted.
* Markets for Kangaroo meat are limited as 75% of the meat from a Kangaroo is used for pet food; a deplorable waste of a misunderstood, beloved, unique, iconic native animal, and tax payer’s money.

Wildlife corridors, not tollways!

Victorian government should establish interconnecting wildlife corridors to provide Bio-Links to save species . It should protect the gene pool, educate children to respect native animals, and (rather than destroy them) trans-locate kangaroos as Professor Steve Garlick and his wife Dr Rosemary Austen have successfully accomplished many times.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council strongly urges Victoria's current Premier, Denis Napthine, not to reintroduce a commercial Kangaroo industry into Victoria.

The author of this article, Maryland Wilson, is the President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

VicForests up before the Supreme Court - again - for alleged illegal logging, thanks to the amazing avatars of Environment East Gippsland. Dig into your pockets, folks! EEG does more for you than your taxes!

Wednesday 14th December 2011

VicForests is again being sued in the Supreme Court over what an environment group believes is illegal logging of a very significant protected rainforest area. Environment East Gippsland, which successfully sued VicForests last year, is lodging papers for an urgent injunction this morning in the Melbourne Supreme Court to stop the logging.

“This is the third case of what we believe is illegal logging that VicForests will have to answer for”, said Jill Redwood, coordinator of the group. “The public thinks this type of lawless destruction of protected primary forest and rainforest only occurs overseas”.

“VicForests is still refusing to pay our legal costs of around a million dollars from last year, despite this being a clear court order. If they think this is preventing us taking further legal action, it’s not working. The public is so outraged about their criminal destruction, they have already donated enough for us to get this next legal action rolling.”

“In a proper democracy it should not be up to the public to enforce the law over an uncontrollable government entity. We should not be forced to ask the courts to ensure VicForests abides by the law. We are a developed country. We give millions to other countries to help them stop illegal logging of their rainforests. But in Victoria we are seeing the same happen with full support of the Baillieu government. Exploiting industries seem to be writing the government’s laws and policies now”.

This stand of forest was blockaded for 5 days last week and was broken up by police on Monday.

“It doesn’t take long for a determined crew of logging contractors to cut down the tall trees and smash down a forest of tree ferns”, said Jill Redwood “We hope this injunction will be successful”.

For comment - Jill Redwood: 51540145, Liz Ingham (in court for EEG): 0409 333 595

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall! - Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria

Julianne Bell (of Protectors of Public Lands Inc.) writes:

I appeared at the Future Melbourne Committee on Tuesday last and spoke on the agenda item on the Draft Urban Forest Policy. I was the only person to speak and PPL VIC the only group apparently to make a submission.

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. See my submission below. Also the Herald Sun report of 5 November 2011 with comments from the Lord Mayor in case you think I am making this up.

"Stately elms going in city tree change"

I did not make a submission on the Committee of Melbourne's (CoM's) Open Space Strategy which was raised the same night but am following this up. I would not have been allowed to speak anyway as there were hundreds of residents there to hear the result of resolutions regarding a review of the CoM's electoral system and Occupy Melbourne protests.

Note that there are supposed to be "consultations" on the "Draft Urban Forest Policy" and the "Draft Open Space Strategy."

I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall!

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL VIC)
The Chair
Future Melbourne Committee
Town Hall,
Melbourne 3000

8 November 2011

Dear Chairperson

Submission on Item 5.3 Draft Urban Forest Strategy

I am speaking for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) in commenting on this draft strategy.

I wish to make the following points:

Our organisation applauds the objectives expressed in the document of the Draft Urban Forest policy. The trendy name tends to conceal the fact that we are dealing mostly with street trees.

We recognise that the drought has impacted badly on Melbourne’s trees and that it was the intransigence of the Bracks Government for refusing to assist the City of Melbourne to drought proof the trees by, for instance, building a sewer mining project in Princes Park which would have supplied water to Melbourne’s parks and street trees.

We are alarmed, however about suggestions that there will be a wholesale felling of trees classified as “nearing the end of their lives.” In particular we are concerned over the fate of avenues

Staff of the City of Melbourne appear to have a purist view about removal of avenues of trees and maintain that the entire avenue should be removed rather than attempting removal of failing trees and interstitial planting of the gaps. At a recent hearing on the World Heritage Management Plan of the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens held by Heritage Victoria, the spokesperson for the CoM suggested that as the Plane Tree avenue in the Carlton Gardens was nearly the end of its life then the whole avenue should be removed. Our arborist who gave evidence, was of the opinion it was the finest avenue of plane trees in Victoria: that the trees are healthy; and that they have another 20 years or so lifespan.

Several years ago we had the unfortunate example of the avenue of Camperdown elms - 550 elms in the main street – which a Committee of representatives including Heritage Victoria and Friends of the Elms, with I believe the support of the City of Melbourne arborist, recommended the whole avenue be felled. The Corangamite Shire Council accepted the recommendations of our consultant arborist that the few gaps be filled by interstitial plantings. Consequently a moratorium has been placed on the destruction of the elm avenue and elm avenues in side streets. They have adopted a policy of interstitial planting in any gaps. between trees.

We would request that the City of Melbourne identify exactly what trees you are proposing to remove and what species you are proposing to plant in their stead. Additionally with regard to avenues we would like explanations as to why healthy trees cannot be saved and replacement trees of the same species planted in the gaps. (We realise that there may be problems with this approach in St Kilda Road.)

I have heard that Council has a questionnaire on the Draft Urban Forest policy. I can’t locate it on the website.

Signed Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC Mobile: 0408022408

Article adapted for candobetter.net from emails and announcements by
Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

Mobile: 0408022408

Proposed revisions to the Code of Practice for Forestry in Victoria Australia could adversely impact Victoria's threatened species. As many candobetter.net readers know, the Victorian Auditor General found last year that Victoria has utterly failed in its objectives under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1986) to measure and protect unique species from threat and endangerment. These changes also follow Environment East Gippsland's historic win in court against VicForests last year, where EEG sought protection under this Act for endangered species. With these changes, loggers could seek exemptions from state environment laws protecting endangered species. Victorians (and people all over the world) need to be aware of these proposed changes and to make comments. You can make a submission via this article

Main Points

According to comments reported in the Age, 3 November 2011:

The Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment would be able to exempt a logging project from the requirements of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, which protects the state's endangered and threatened species.

"The proposed changes follow a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court last year banning VicForests from logging old-growth forest at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, after an endangered long-footed potoroo was filmed in an area to be felled."

"The secretary will consider, among other things, the numbers required to maintain a viable population of a listed species in the area to be logged, and the amount of habitat near the proposed coupe already protected in national parks."

''The objective of the variations is to achieve a better balance between the protection of threatened species and sustainable timber production from public native forests.'' Source: Tom Arup, "New state law in the pipeline to aid loggers."

How to make a submission and how to get more information on-line

The Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 (the Code) is a key regulatory instrument that applies to commercial timber production in both public and private native forests and plantations in Victoria. It is a statutory document prepared under Part 5 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Compliance is required under the Sustainable Forest (Timber) Act 2004 and via its incorporation into the Victoria Planning Provisions.

The purpose of the Code is to ensure that commercial timber growing and timber harvesting operations are carried out on both public land and private land in such a way that:

Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[PDF File - 2.1 MB]

Proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production (October 2011)

Members of the public are invited to provide comment on a number of proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production to improve certainty of timber supply to the native forest timber industry, while balancing the needs of the environment.

Document explaining the proposed variations

The following document outlines the proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production.

Proposed variation to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[PDF File - 162.3 KB]
Proposed variation to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[MS Word Document - 60.0 KB]

If you have problems downloading this document, please contact the Customer Service Centre on 136 186 for assistance.

Summary

The proposed variations change the wording in relation to the application of Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statements. This aims to introduce more flexibility and allow further consideration of the importance of Victoria’s national parks and conservation reserves in the protection of threatened species.

The variations will improve the focus of conservation for threatened flora and fauna species to be applied at landscape level, and allow for a reduced focus at the individual animal or plant level.

Factors needing to be considered by the Secretary to the Department of Sustainability and Environment in determining the application of a Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement are also being considered for inclusion in the Code.

Submission of comments

Anyone interested in making a submission on the proposed variations should provide their comments to DSE in writing by:

Mail:

Review of the Code of Practice for Timber Production

Forests and Parks Division

Department of Sustainability and Environment

PO Box 500

East Melbourne, VIC, 3002

Email:

[email protected]

Closing date: submissions must be provided by Wednesday 1 February 2012. Submissions received after this time may not be able to be considered.

Compliance with the Code of Practice

The department ensures that all timber harvesting operations are undertaken in compliance with relevant legislation and with the Code of Practice. Find out more about timber harvesting compliance.



Related Links

The Code refers to various laws and policies that may be subject to change. Links to state policies and other information relevant to the Code are provided below.

• Management Procedures for Timber Harvesting, Roading and Regeneration of Victoria's State Forests 2009 - Provides detailed prescriptions for forest timber harvesting operations, road construction operations, significant road improvement operations, site rehabilitation, forest regeneration and associated administrative processes.
• Native Forest Silviculture Guideline series - Provide information and recommendations on the best available practice for basic silvicultural operations carried out in Victoria's native State forests, that may be applicable to other native forest areas.
• Timber Production in the Rural Zone - Provides guidance to planning authorities about the preparation of a schedule to the Rural Zone as it relates to timber production.
• www.legislation.vic.gov.au - Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents.
• Safety in Forest Operations (Harvesting and Haulage) Industry Standard (July 2007) - Provides practical advice about working safely in Victorian forests.